Gunpowder made armor obsolete, but not because it was tactically superior. Armor became obsolete because the cost of outfitting an army with sufficient armor to be tactically effective became prohibitive. Note that not even the Romans gave all their soldiers the full kit, because it was expensive.
I’m arguing that it wouldn’t go through without losing energy. And would then have to go through the armour. And then through the subarmalis. And then still have enough energy to be lethal. Which might be the case, but the numbers given so far don’t address that combo.
Okay, do you have any math or video evidence to support that argument? Or to refute the math posted upthread? You can find plenty of videos on YouTube showing flintlocks absolutely ignoring medieval breastplates, which would have been much stronger than Roman mail.
Not to mention that a battlefield isn’t going to be nearly as manicured an even and flat surface as a track.
Sprinters also don’t have to worry about tripping over their fallen comrades.
Yes that 10 s number was complete horseshit.
I’m as big a fan of Skallagrim as most reenactors, but I can also find plenty of references to breastplates merely dented by close weapons fire. Seen them myself, even, at Greenwich.
Who was talking about mail? And when it comes to lorica segmentata, what are you basing this on, the word of some anonymous Quora contributor who misapplies the Free-Edge Effect to a non-laminate?
Look, like I said, I’m on the fence as to the OP’s question, but poor arguments aren’t going to sway me.
Doesn’t have to be lethal. Just has to take the Roman out of the charge. Big difference.
“to be immediately incapacitating”, then. In which case there are also lots of eventually lethal wounds that also wouldn’t count, and it’s likely a wash.
Sure, great athletes. But they had not be trained since a boy to run and march in that kit.
Again, they had not been trained for a decade to run and march with shields.
Except that is the hypothetical. And that is the normal tactic.
It isn’t just muskets however. A battery of 9 pounders would start firing at nearly 900 meters, and canister at half that. That would destroy the Romans quickly. Also it took quite some time to train a good legionnaire, whilst a line infantry man could be trained in months. Which is why, yes a longbow is a better weapon than a musket- if you have a decade or more or training.
There is also the moral effect of massed musketry, which we are ignoring for this.
Right. Also the training to use a pilum, gladius and scutum takes much longer than musket.
The armor is NOT going to stop the musket balls. However, it certainly could deflect some. Even the napoleonic cuirass would deflect shots once in a while, although a straight hit would plow through.
Fighting the hypothetical, since the Op said 100 years. That is what gives the Romans the edge. In any case, that was the standard range of a volley.
Yeah, my bad. “Most” and “10 seconds flat” are definitely overstatement. I was thinking of elite college athletes.
https://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/track-field/results/d1/outdoor17/final/001-1_compiled.htm
But that strengthens the argument against 12 second soldier sprinters.
Sure, but this entire question is a hypothetical. Part of the reason they would have waited to fire until about 100 yards is because they could depend on a battery of canons to work their magic at greater distances but we’re not using canons in this hypothetical. As the commanding officer, I know the Romans aren’t armed with any ranged weapons save their pilum so why wouldn’t I order my men to start shooting at the 200-300 yard mark? The Romans are going to start taking casualties long before they get to within 100 yards.
Why are we assuming that the Romans would attack in a wide open field across from the Redcoats? I am aware that the legions loved that formation, and typically were looking for battlefields where they could use it. But most Roman commanders weren’t idiots. If they knew or suspected that the Redcoats had a superior ranged weapon, they would look to take away that advantage.
I understand that, but the hypothetical isn’t a Roman legion vs a British regiment. It is only century vs a company, at 100 yards.
Remember also that the Napoleonic armies depended heavily on the bayonet. The tactic was one, maybe two volleys, then bayonet fighting.
Now the Redcoat bayonet tactics had a way around shield- you do not fight the guy in front of you, but to your right, getting past his shield. That worked well, but then would glance off the Lorica.
Fir those of you thinking that the legionnaires would be slaughtered, remember the Battle of Islandwana, where the Redcoats, using the much superior Snyder rifle*, got overrun by the Zulus. This happened as they were taken by surprise , and had poor artillery support.
- higher rate of fire, longer range, more penetration.
Are we assuming that the Romans have faced firearms before and would know what to expect? Because otherwise, they’d be utterly terrified and bewildered by the sound of gunfire and would almost certainly break ranks and flee.
I agree that 20,000 Romans could probably take out 2,000 redcoats if they start 100 yards apart, if that’s the argument you’re trying to make.
Yes, I think so. And also that the Redcoats wouldn’t be surprised to see Romans.
Well, the Zulus only used less than half the army there. But yes, numbers did help. But the Zulus started well over a mile away.
Have you seen sprinters after a 100m race; the soldiers would be way too winded to fight effectively even if they could cover that distance in 10-12 seconds.
Also, don’t forget that even with modern body armor that turns a bullet into a less-than-lethal round the wearer still takes a hit. Even if it doesn’t go thru, a shot close to where the shield is being held is gonna hurt; even an ‘owwie’ is gonna slow the legionnaire down a bit, which give the Redcoat time to get off an extra shot.
You appear to be much more knowledgeable than me, so if you’re willing to explain why all that metallurgy and velocity stuff is wrong I’ll happily listen.
Any Roman whose armor and shield deflected or stopped a musket ball would be lucky. But it could and did happen.
But the armor would stop a bayonet.
Mr. Dibble is just, well, wrong. Musket balls tend to wreck much better quality armor than the Romans (of any era) had routine access to, and, he is making a fundamental mistake about how armor protection works. Or rather, he’s making a correct assessment of how it works in ideal circumstances and applying that to really, really not-ideal circumstances.
Yes, ideally you would hope that a shield might stop an arrow or sling stone, but if not it should hopefully slow the projectile enough that the soldier survives. Possibly wounded and out of action but hopefully with a light enough wound to recover. However, the reason firearms were adopted in such a widespread manner was that they basically made this practice obsolete.
If the individual soldier got lucky, then yes, a shield might absorb enough energy, maybe deflect the bullet a little, and if it hit the thickest part of the armor it might not penetrate. That is emphatically not the likely case, however. The scutum simply isn’t designed to deal with musket balls - in fact I don’t think anyone even came up with a reasonable defensive shield. Some armor can be be made reasonably bullet-resistant*, but it’s not easy. Redcoats would have been firing very heavy projectiles that will punch through just about anything a man can realistically bear. More to the point, the ball does not need to penetrate the thickest part of the armor. Statistically, most of the balls won’t; they may go high or low. They will carve through arms, legs, heads and groins with equal force.
Romans of pretty much anything except maybe the late-Imperial cavalry-only force would be completely outclassed by a group of well-trained Redcoats. Their only option would be to try and ambush in a wooded area, but that will make them somewhat vulnerable as well. Roman formations could have trouble in such environments, and the British side basically has good functional spears as a backup.
*Well, resistant to musket balls.